Hall v. Liebling

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hall v. Liebling

890 So. 2d 475, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 20005, 2004 WL 3008853

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 29, 2004

DocketNo. 2D04-822

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 890 So. 2d 475 (Hall v. Liebling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hall v. Liebling, 890 So. 2d 475, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 20005, 2004 WL 3008853 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

FULMER, Judge.

Allan L. Hall sought mandamus relief to compel the release of documents by his former counsel, Edward Liebling, a former assistant public defender who is now engaged in private practice. In denying the mandamus petition, the trial court concluded that the petition was successive and “the matter has been adjudicated.” The record, however, does not contain documentation that substantiates this conclusion. We nevertheless affirm because Liebling is a private citizen and not a government official. The trial court’s mandamus authority will not lie to compel a private citizen to return documents to Hall. See Donahue v. Vaughn, 721 So.2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that mandamus does not lie to require a private citizen to perform a ministerial duty required by law).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and VILLANTI, J., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FULMER, Judge.

Allan L. Hall sought mandamus relief to compel the release of documents by his former counsel, Edward Liebling, a former assistant public defender who is now engaged in private practice. In denying the mandamus petition, the trial court concluded that the petition was successive and “the matter has been adjudicated.” The record, however, does not contain documentation that substantiates this conclusion. We nevertheless affirm because Liebling is a private citizen and not a government official. The trial court’s mandamus authority will not lie to compel a private citizen to return documents to Hall. See Donahue v. Vaughn, 721 So.2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that mandamus does not lie to require a private citizen to perform a ministerial duty required by law).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and VILLANTI, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

890 So. 2d 475, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 20005, 2004 WL 3008853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-liebling-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack